by Raymond Ha, HRNK Office Manager & Outreach Coordinator

On November 19, 2015, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly approved draft resolution A/C.3/70/L.35 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with 112 votes for, 19 against, and 50 abstentions [1]. With this vote, the international community strongly signaled once again its deep concern towards the human rights situation in North Korea.

Although the General Assembly has passed resolutions on North Korea’s human rights record since 2005, last year marked a turning point. Taking into account the recommendations of the February 2014 report of the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI), the 2014 resolution recognized for the first time that “crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State for decades” (par. 7). It also called upon the Security Council to formally discuss the COI report and consider measures to ensure accountability, including referrals to the International Criminal Court and targeted sanctions against “those who appear to be most responsible” (par. 8) [2].

Despite an unprecedented “charm offensive” by North Korea’s diplomats in New York, the Third Committee of the General Assembly approved this resolution on November 18, 2014 with 111 votes for, 19 against, and 55 abstentions. The plenary session passed the resolution a month later by a similar margin of 116 for, 20 against, and 53 abstentions. Building on this momentum, the Security Council held a historic session on December 22, 2014, where it voted to place the North Korean human rights issue on its agenda with 11 in favor, 2 against, and 2 abstentions.

While recognizing relevant developments in the past year, such as the opening of the UN OHCHR field office in Seoul, this year’s resolution preserves the key provisions of last year’s resolution. It continues the call for accountability for crimes against humanity (par. 10) and encourages the Security Council to discuss North Korea’s human rights record (par. 11) [3]. In this regard, yesterday’s vote can be seen as a sign that the international community continues to stand by the conclusions and recommendations of the COI. The resolution is widely expected to also pass the plenary session of the General Assembly, and Ambassador Robert King, the United States’ Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights, has stated that the U.S. will hold a discussion on the issue when it holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council next month [4].

The results of yesterday’s vote are largely similar to last year’s result in the Third Committee. The number of countries in favor increased by one, the number opposing the resolution held constant, and the number of abstentions decreased by five. Although the number of countries participating in the vote fell by four, the overall result remains similar.

However, a closer analysis of each country’s vote reveals notable changes between 2014 and 2015. This article summarizes these differences and briefly examines the implications of yesterday’s vote for the discussion of the North Korean human rights issue at the Security Council. In two instances, it also suggests possible reasons for changes in voting behavior.

The observations and conclusions made here are necessarily tentative, and a more robust examination will be possible after the vote of the plenary session next month. Since it only addresses changes in voting behavior and not the voting behavior of all UN member states, this analysis is necessarily incomplete.

For the purposes of this analysis, it will be assumed that each recorded vote is a correct and accurate reflection of each country’s voting preferences and intentions. This assumption is stated in light of an unusual occurrence last year. The Third Committee’s report to the General Assembly in 2014 noted that Grenada had intended to vote in favor of the resolution on North Korean human rights, although its vote was recorded as an abstention [5]. Since Grenada voted in favor of the resolution in the December 2014 plenary session and in yesterday’s vote, it is excluded from this analysis.

Overall Analysis of Changes in Voting Behavior

The table below provides the full list of countries that changed their voting behavior with regards to the General Assembly resolution on North Korea’s human rights record. Azerbaijan, Equatorial Guinea, and Mongolia are excluded, as they did not participate in any of the three votes.

Third Committee

Nov. 18, 2014

111-19-55

(A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*)

Plenary Session

Dec. 18, 2014

116-20-53

(A/RES/69/188)

Third Committee

Nov. 19, 2015

112-19-50

(A/C.3/70/L.35)

Algeria

Abstain

Abstain

Against

Antigua and Barbuda

Abstain

Abstain

(Did not vote)

Benin

For

For

(Did not vote)

Burkina Faso

For

For

Abstain

Burundi

For

For

Against

Central African Republic

For

For

(Did not vote)

Chad

For

For

(Did not vote)

Comoros

Abstain

Abstain

For

Congo (Republic of)

Abstain

Abstain

(Did not vote)

Dominica

(Did not vote)

For

(Did not vote)

Ecuador

Against

Against

Abstain

El Salvador

Abstain

For

For

Gabon

Abstain

Abstain

For

Gambia

Abstain

Against

Abstain

Ghana

For

For

Abstain

Guinea-Bissau

(Did not vote)

For

For

Kiribati

For

For

(Did not vote)

Sao Tome & Principe

(Did not vote)

For

(Did not vote)

Saudi Arabia

Abstain

Abstain

For

Somalia

For

For

(Did not vote)

South Sudan

Abstain

For

For

Sri Lanka

Against

Against

For

Swaziland

(Did not vote)

(Did not vote)

Abstain

Tajikistan

For

Abstain

For

Togo

Abstain

Abstain

For

Tonga

Abstain

Abstain

Table 1: Summary of Changes in Voting Behavior

The first observation that can be made is that of the nine countries that did not participate in yesterday’s vote, seven voted in favor of last year’s resolution: Benin, the Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Kiribati, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia. Of these seven countries, five voted in favor on both occasions in 2014. It is therefore highly likely that the number of countries voting in favor will be higher in the upcoming plenary session than in yesterday’s Third Committee vote. This pattern was also observed last year, where the number of countries voting in favor increased from 111 to 116.

Secondly, eight countries moved towards supporting the resolution. Sri Lanka reversed its position, while Ecuador elected to abstain after consistently voting against the resolution in 2014. Comoros, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, and Togo had previously abstained, but voted in favor this year. Gambia and Tajikistan changed their positions relative to last year’s plenary session, but not in relation to last year’s Third Committee vote. Of these changes, Saudi Arabia’s decision is particularly notable; in July 2015, South Korean intelligence sources claimed that twenty Scud missiles fired into Saudi Arabia by Yemeni rebels had been purchased from North Korea [6]. If true, this development may have influenced Riyadh’s vote.

Lastly, four countries moved towards opposing the resolution. Burkina Faso and Ghana, which had voted for the resolution last year, decided to abstain in yesterday’s vote. Algeria, which had previously abstained, voted against this year’s resolution. Burundi was the only member state that reversed its stance. This may have been part of an attempt to deflect rising international criticism of and concern towards the recent escalation of violence in Burundi [7]. That Burundi also voted against country-specific human rights resolutions on Iran (A/C.3/70/L.45) and Syria (A/C.3/70/L.47) later in the same day is consistent with this hypothesis [8].

Implications for the Security Council

As noted above, a procedural vote in December 2014 placed North Korean human rights on the agenda of the Security Council. The table below shows how Security Council members in 2015 and 2016 voted on yesterday’s draft resolution in the Third Committee. Except Chad, all of the countries listed below did not change their position on the General Assembly resolution on North Korean human rights between 2014 and 2015 [9].

Membership in 2015

Membership in 2016

China

Against

China

Against

France

For

France

For

Russian Federation

Against

Russian Federation

Against

United Kingdom

For

United Kingdom

For

United States

For

United States

For

Angola

Abstain

Angola

Abstain

Malaysia

Abstain

Malaysia

Abstain

New Zealand

For

New Zealand

For

Spain

For

Spain

For

Venezuela

Against

Venezuela

Against

Chad

(Did not vote)

Egypt

Against

Chile

For

Japan

For

Jordan

For

Senegal

Abstain

Lithuania

For

Ukraine

For

Nigeria

Abstain

Uruguay

For

For both the remainder of this year and into 2016, a majority of members on the Security Council will be supportive of efforts to improve the human rights situation in North Korea and of measures to ensure accountability for crimes against humanity. Although Security Council resolutions can potentially be vetoed by any of the five permanent members, the political climate will nevertheless remain slightly favorable towards a discussion of the North Korean human rights issue.

[5] See page 4, footnote 1 of “Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives: Report of the Third Committee,” UN Doc. A/69/488/Add.3, December 3, 2014.

[9] Chad voted in favor of the 2014 General Assembly resolution on North Korean human rights, both at the Third Committee and during the plenary session. It abstained from the procedural vote at the Security Council in December 2014 to place North Korean human rights on the Security Council's agenda.

HRNK on Facebook

Blog Archive

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea

1001 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 435

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: (202) 499-7970

Fax: (202) 758-2348

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors' and not those of any other person, organization, or entity; they are the authors' alone. Specifically, they do not represent the views of the Board of Directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) nor necessarily reflect the official policy or position of HRNK.